POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

This new tech paper from Pilots for 9/11 Truth complete with calculations and animations is a formal breakdown scientifically demonstrating that a plane on the north side of the gas station can not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon starting with the light poles.

Although it's usually pretty obvious to the layman simply by looking at the location of the physical damage in relation to the witness flight path illustrations this paper makes it 100% clear and is backed by experts and professionals.

This puts any possible doubts to rest regarding the non-controversial scientific fact that a flight path directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station as reported by the witnesses presented in National Security Alert unequivocally and scientifically proves a flyover.

This puts any possible doubts to rest regarding the non-controversial scientific fact that a flight path directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station as reported by the witnesses presented in National Security Alert unequivocally and scientifically proves a flyover.

Getting closer anyway. Nicely done paper that appears compelling for making the case that the flight path north of Citgo could not include the light pole collisions.

But to complete the case, you need to also consider alternative flight paths that do not collide with the light poles, assuming the toppled poles were staged. And since we can't trust that the interior destruction was reported accurately, are there any flight paths that are only consistent with the exterior damage of the Pentagon wall and the immediately nearby structures? Looking forward to seeing that analysis.

I'm curious. I thought the decision about this ended years ago with the acknowledgment that NO 757 aircraft, or any large aircraft for that matter struck the pentagon. The pentagon itself yielded more than sufficient evidence/proof that this incident never happened. Is there a purpose for this organization anymore? Rational people are already well convinced that the WTC incident was local fraud and carried off badly. It was carried off with drones for the towers, and god knows where the passengers of flight 93 and 77 are. I read somewhere where a female ATC announced American 77 out over the Atlantic. To my horror and certainly yours, the reason for this CIA sponsored crime served it's purpose, and Americans have no further interest in it. The accepted the lie of Arab Terrorists long ago, the corporations that stood to steal trillions from Americans did, and there are, that I know of, now current investigations afoot as we speak. I, for one, and enraged at this fact. But as I'm sure you know, most americans are plainly stupid and swallowed the Bush bilge like a cold beer on a hot day. They now blame Arabs for the crime and have inflamed the middle east for years to come. Despite the US loss in Iraq, and Afghanistan, now Pakistan, Wiziristan Georgia and Somalia are involved! They still don't have a pipeline route for the Oil under the Caucasus. I can't see now how the US will get one. Finally, what's going to happen to us when all these PTSD kids on antidepressants come home dead or with limbs blown of and worst of all the wreckage of a "video game" mentality. VA will be crushed like a cigarette butt. Housing? medical care? Jobs? The rise of all these "security" companies. Badly trained mercenaries? This current military is the worst trained worst performing set of goof-balls ever fielded by the US, and they're already organizing thinking they've been "battle tested," and ready to take on the world. They've missed the point THEY LOST THE WARS AND LARGELY DUE TO HOMEMADE BOMBS! Anyway, we've got bigger problems than an issue America has decided to let slide into history unchallenged. I think we can stop worrying about American 77. It never was close to the pentagon.

Getting closer anyway. Nicely done paper that appears compelling for making the case that the flight path north of Citgo could not include the light pole collisions.

But to complete the case, you need to also consider alternative flight paths that do not collide with the light poles, assuming the toppled poles were staged. And since we can't trust that the interior destruction was reported accurately, are there any flight paths that are only consistent with the exterior damage of the Pentagon wall and the immediately nearby structures? Looking forward to seeing that analysis.

dan

There is much more damage requiring a south side approach than just the light poles.

That would be the generator trailer, the retaining wall, and low and level damage to the outer facade of the building, as well as the damage to the C-ring hole.

ALL of it requires as southern approach and we do not have to rely on a single govt report to know the location of ANY of this damage.

The fact that there are no downed light poles on the north side also proves the plane did not hit the building on the first floor from this trajectory.

It is not logical to suggest that the light poles, cab, generator trailer, retaining wall, C-ring hole, security video, AND the ASCE report were all completely falsified while the plane hit. Not to mention you are forced to dismiss the evidence we have proving people saw the plane flying away.

There is much more damage requiring a south side approach than just the light poles.

That would be the generator trailer, the retaining wall, and low and level damage to the outer facade of the building, as well as the damage to the C-ring hole.

This is your claim, but I think the paper only shows that the flight path that INCLUDES the light pole collisions is not feasible. I am just asking for the further analysis that shows there is no flight path that DOES NOT include the light pole collisions but DOES include the other damage to the exterior. The angle of entry might be wrong for explaining the damage to the C-ring that is visible from the outside, but for that we might suppose that damage was caused by pre-placed explosives. After all, if you are going to suggest that the whole explosion was due to pre-placed explosives, it would not be as difficult to only explode the holes (3 of them) on the C-ring.

I am persuaded by the several eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the north of Citgo, but I am not persuaded by the one witness who saw a plane fly away. Are there more who claimed to see it fly away?

This is your claim, but I think the paper only shows that the flight path that INCLUDES the light pole collisions is not feasible. I am just asking for the further analysis that shows there is no flight path that DOES NOT include the light pole collisions but DOES include the other damage to the exterior. The angle of entry might be wrong for explaining the damage to the C-ring that is visible from the outside, but for that we might suppose that damage was caused by pre-placed explosives. After all, if you are going to suggest that the whole explosion was due to pre-placed explosives, it would not be as difficult to only explode the holes (3 of them) on the C-ring.

I am persuaded by the several eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the north of Citgo, but I am not persuaded by the one witness who saw a plane fly away. Are there more who claimed to see it fly away?

There are many data points of damage that delineate a very specific trajectory leading all the way to the C-ring hole.

This is a fact that is not contestable and not reliant upon a single official report. It is not merely my "claim".

You need at least 2 data points to delineate a damage trajectory north of the Citgo and these do not exist.

In absence of this evidence, particularly ZERO downed light poles on the north side approach, it is not remotely logical to dismiss out of hand the direct evidence for a flyover in favor of a wild purely speculative based theory that requires a relatively slow moving, right banking, large aircraft to completely disintegrate low and level into the first floor of the building without damaging the lawn or the foundation.

You can refuse to accept the implications of the evidence (while flat out dismissing direct evidence) all you want but doing so based on an unsupported illogical theory that requires even more staging than the plane NOT hitting defies Occam's razor and serves to diminish the significance of what we do have and is therefore counter-productive to the campaign to expose 9/11 truth.

Whether or not you accept the obvious implications we have enough evidence to prove a deception dlaliberte .

Sorry, I don´t follow the logic of requesting math on paths which do not include the lightpoles (am I understanding this correctly?)If the plane was nowhere near the lightpoles, an inside job is the automatic conclusion.

There is much more damage requiring a south side approach than just the light poles.

That would be the generator trailer, the retaining wall, and low and level damage to the outer facade of the building, as well as the damage to the C-ring hole.

ALL of it requires as southern approach and we do not have to rely on a single govt report to know the location of ANY of this damage.

The fact that there are no downed light poles on the north side also proves the plane did not hit the building on the first floor from this trajectory.

It is not logical to suggest that the light poles, cab, generator trailer, retaining wall, C-ring hole, security video, AND the ASCE report were all completely falsified while the plane hit. Not to mention you are forced to dismiss the evidence we have proving people saw the plane flying away.

NoC 100% proves a flyover. There is no way around it.

Allow me to provide some input here regarding what would very likely have happened to the generator were it to be impacted with a 757 engine: [1] The outboard engine cowlings would have separated (been ripped) from the engine. There are two cowlings on each side: Fan and Thrust Reverser. While they are indeed well-built, they are still held in place by two hinges each, and they are not indestructible. An impact as shown in the first URL above would have immediately crumpled the intake cowl forcing it backwards into the fan cowl.[2] Owing to the mass of the engine, the generator would have been swing around and tipped over. Remember F=MA.[3] If the generator were heavy —and stout—enough to sustain a direct impact and remain in place, then the engine would have been ripped from the nacelle and it would likely have exploded into many parts in the process. Too, that would have likely ripped the skin off the bottom of the right wing, and that would have been left laying on the ground. I say that because the engine nacelle is bolted to the lower wing with enough fasteners as to accomplish ripping that skin off.

Great work! I'd never given much thought to this aspect because: (1) all the other evidence collected and discussed on this Forum subsumes it, and (2) planes obviously have to roll to turn and the amount of roll required increases with speed. Unfortunately, there's nothing to prevent any old person who wants to defend part of the "conventional wisdom" from getting a crayon and scribbling any final path they wish. So this is important because it points out that science severely restricts their path choices.

It's ironic that in an effort to save the building damage, this attempt tosses the South Path approach out the window and accepts your NOC witness Path. That's progress - you've forced them to realize that they have to lighten ship, so now they are forced to toss stuff overboard! You have the intellectual and rhetorical initiative.

1. You seem to have established these rules:

( a ) Only one turn can be included in any hypothetical final path. Time, space and aerodynamics preclude two or more turns.

( b ) The roll from even one turn at 200-400 knots will take the face of the plane off of a horizontal axis (parallel to the ground) and instead put it on an axis that is angled in relation to the ground. This will dramatically reduce the width of the ground area in which the plane can strike objects such as light poles.

( c ) Reconciling even one turn with the unscathed lawn and building damage is problematic.

(i) The unscathed lawn requires the plane's wings to be on a horizontal axis parallel to the ground for a substantial amount of time and distance prior to impact. Otherwise the wings would dig in. The only way to have both is for the plane finish the turn further away from the building.

(ii) The photos and other assessments of the building damage purport to show or explain damage that was caused by a plane that had its whole wing span parallel to the ground and on a horizontal axis when it hit. Same problem as the lawn if you can get there by somehow overcoming the problems with getting the plane flat to cross the lawn in the first place.

( d ) On the other hand, it's very easy to reconcile a turn or turns with a flyover or flyby because the plane does not have to clear the lawn or strike anything. Thus it does not require any particular flat orientation with the ground at these specific times and places; instead, the plane can be in the process of making one or more turns.

2. Here's something new. If the plane is in a turn as it passes NOC doing a flyby (not over) that ends with Roosevelt seeing it over the South Lot, then it might also be consistent with it striking some of the light poles in the process.

( a ) The seven lines drawn by your witnesses show various paths that first turn and then converge into straight traverses over one of the clover leafs. It's the second leaf on the north side of the highway after passing over the Citgo going straight northeast.

( b ) If the plane turns right out of that course while crossing the highway, to head past the southwest corner of Pentagon and then over the South Lot, it seems that poles 3, 4 and 5 might lie along that path. They are very close together and this angle of approach would not increase their separation. They are so close that even a plane with its width reduced by turn roll still might catch them all.

( c ) The plane only has to be high enough to fly past the Pentagon, not high enough to fly over it. It can be both high enough to fly past and low enough to hit the three poles.

( d ) However, it does not seem possible to include Poles 1 and 2. The plane is already past them, they lie off the path of any credible turn toward the South Lot, and this angle of approach increases separation from the other three to the point that they could not also be hit even before you add a turn and roll.

3. Interestingly, if you assume the validity of Warren's FDR decode along with accuracy to the eighth decimal, then the final INS position corroborates a significant part of the eyewitness accounts and shows that a flyover/by remains the best and probably only plausible explanation. However, a straight line through the 4 or 5 preceding positions results in an approach path that adds nuance while confirming the critical elements of a flyover/by, as follows.

( a ) The INS path would be nowhere near and conclusively rule out the "South Path".

( b ) The point where it would cross Columbia Pike is at Paik's Garage. Watching the sweeping overhead arm gesture that Paik used to illustrate the path again, that crossing point is also as far as the argument interpreting "where Paik is pointing" can be stretched. I see him indicating the plane's path was already centered on the north side of Columbia Pike as it approached and then flew over me - the only, and less likely, alternative is the center of the plane crossed the road while it was flying over me. Either way, both Paik and INS get the plane on the north side on a path consistent with NOC.

( c ) Next, when Morin saw the plane, the INS does not have its center over the Annex structure, but slightly out over the parking lot instead so that a great portion of its left wing would pass over top of the building. Just like Paik, that seems to be about as far as you can stretch any alternative interpretation of the words that Morin used to describe either his location or the course he saw. In any case, what's important is that when Morin saw it, the plane still was neither pointed at the Pentagon nor in the process of turning.

( d ) Then the center of the plane would pass over the corner of the Annex that is closest to the Pentagon, while the entire plane misses the VDOT antenna by a wide margin.

( e ) The INS path goes over the Citgo slightly south of the center of the building. It's about 150 feet from the north side of the building and most literal sense of NOC, 200 feet from the closest witness path, and 500 feet from the average of the points where the witnesses placed the plane as it passed the Citgo. Then it continues straight northeast with no indication of any turn.

( f ) The final INS point is right square in the middle of the same clover leaf that your witnesses' paths converge over and traverse in straight lines, and moreover in the midst of those lines. The INS and witnesses thus agree that the plane reached a point near the center of that leaf while on a straight course, and that the general approach up to the line of the Citgo was straight and northeast.

( g ) At the Citgo, they disagree on the relative position of the plane to the building as well as whether it was in the process of turning or still going straight. As a result, then there are conflicting directions for the clover leaf traverse.

( h ) The straight INS course and all further evidential value of its position data must end at the final point that it reports. It can no longer contradict a roll and turn toward the Pentagon, various flight paths either past, into or over it, or any eyewitness accounts of those things.

( i ) Much of the above anticipates likely GL contentions and how to defend. But the much more important offensive upshot is that according to the government's own INS position data drawn from the FDR that it claims is the real McCoy:

(I) The plane must miss Poles 1 and 2. It has to pass them and not cross the highway to reach the final INS position in the middle of the cloverleaf. Moreover, all of your witnesses who report that it reached that same point are confirmed. This basic and crucial point is not diminished or affected by the conflicts in how got there.

(II) At that point, the plane has already gone too far to begin making the sharp turn it needs to get on any vector that leads to the light poles or the one alleged impact point. The first vectors to be lost during its straight progress after the Citgo were those that would be consistent with the building damage and/or allow the poles to be struck.

(III) Due to the severe roll consequent to any sharp turn at speed, the INS data does not leave enough time and space to level the roll so the plane can first cross but not blemish the lawn, and then strike the building down low with almost level wings in the manner that is required for the impact and damage to remain consistent. Thisr paper shows that the INS data demands maneuvers that are aerodynamically impossible.

(IV) The eyewitnesses report a completed turn onto a course that leaves a vanishingly small possibility of reaching the sole alleged impact point, but its angle would still be inconsistent with the damage. The INS course just makes that sole impact point impossible to reach in the first place. Alice would say that there's no real difference between vanishingly small possibilities of things and impossible things, and that there's no point in trying to prove sub points that disprove your main point.

I don't think there were any radio communications with the hijackers. If so, there should be tapes of the conversations readily available on the Internet. If you can point us to some evidence, please do so.